On the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism

Published:Supplement toSotsial-DemokratNo. 42, June 1, 1915.

      Published according to the text of the Supplement.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[197[4]],

      Moscow,Volume 21,

      pages199-204.Translated:Transcription\Markup:D. WaltersandR. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2003

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

Themost interesting and most recent material for this
    topical problem has been provided by the International Conference of
    Socialist Women, which adjourned recently in
Berne.[1]The readers will find below an
    account of the Conference and the texts of two resolutions-the one adopted
    and the one rejected. In the present article we would like to discuss only
    one aspect of the question.

Representativesof the women’s organisations attached to the
    Organising Committee; women members of Troelstra’s party in Holland;
    women from the Swiss organisations that are hostile toBerner Tagwachtfor its allegedly excessive Leftist leanings; the French
    representative, who is unwilling to disagree on any important point with the
    official party, which is known to adhere to the social-chauvinist point of
    view; the women of Britain, who are hostile to the idea of a clear line of
    division between pacifism and revolutionary proletarian tactics-all these
    agreed with the “Left” German Social-Democrat women on one
    resolution. The representatives of women’s organisations connected
    with our Party’s Central Committee disagreed with them, preferring to
    remain in isolation for the time being rather than join a bloc ofthiskind.

Whatis the gist of this disagreement? What principles and general
    political significance are involved in this conflict?

Atfirst glance, the middle-of-the-road resolution, which has united the
    opportunists and part of the Left wing looks very fitting and correct in
    principle. The war has been declared an imperialist one, the “defence
    of the fatherland” idea has been condemned, the workers have been
    calledupon to hold mass demonstrations, etc., etc. It might seem that our
    resolution was different only in the use of several sharperexpressionssuch as “betrayal”, “opportunism”,
    “withdrawal from bourgeois governments”, etc.

Itis undoubtedly from this standpoint that criticism will he levelled
    against the withdrawal of the representatives of the women’s
    organisations connected with our Party’s Central Committee.

However,if we give the matter more attention, without confining
    ourselves to a purely “formal” recognition of one truth or
    another, we will realise that such criticism is quite groundless.

Twoworld-outlooks, two appraisals of the war and the tasks of the
    International, two tactics of the proletarian parties clashed at the
    Conference. One view holds that there has been no collapse of the
    international; no deep and grave obstacles to a return from chauvinism to
    socialism; no strong “internal enemy” in the shape of
    opportunism; no direct and obvious betrayal of socialism by opportunism. The
    conclusion to be drawn might be worded as follows: let us condemn nobody;
    let us “amnesty” those who have violated the Stuttgart and the
    Basic resolutions; let us merely advise that the course followed should be
    more to the left and that the masses be called upon to hold
    demonstrations.

Theother, view is diametrically opposed to the former on each of the
    points enumerated above. Nothing is more harmful or more disastrous to the
    proletarian cause than a continuation of inner-Partydiplomacytowards the opportunists and social-chauvinists. The majority resolution
    proved acceptable to the opportunist delegates and to the adherents of the
    present-day official parties just because it is imbued with the spirit of
    diplomacy. Such diplomacy is being used to throw dust in the eyes of the
    working masses, whichat presentare led by the official
    social-patriots. An absolutely erroneous and harmful idea is being
    inculcated upon the working masses, the idea that the present-day
    SocialDemocratic parties, with their present Executives,are capableof changing their course from an erroneous to a correct one.

Thatis not the case. It is a most egregious and pernicious illusion. The
    present-day Social-Democratic parties andtheir Executives areincapableof seriously changing their course. Inpracticeeverything
    will remain as before; the “Left” wishes expressed in the
    majority resolution will remain innocent wishes; an unerring political
    instinct prompted this in the adherents of Troelstra’s party and of
    the present Executive of the French party, when they voted for such a
    resolution. It is only when it is most actively supported by the present
    Executives of the Social-Democratic parties that an appeal for mass
    demonstrations can acquire a serious and practical significance.

Canone expect such support? Obviously not, It is common knowledge that
    such an appeal will meet, not with support, but with stubborn (and mostlycovert)resistance from the Executives.

Ifthe workers were told this in a straightforward way, they would know
    thetruth;they would know that to giveeffect to“Left” wishes, a radical change is necessary in the line of the
    Social-Democratic parties; a most stubborn struggle is necessary against the
    opportunists with their “Centrist” friends. As it is, the
    workers have beenlulled by“Left” wishes, while the
    Conferencere/usedto call by name, loudly and clearly, the evil
    which must be combated if those wishes are to be realised.

Thediplomatic leaders, who are at present conducting a chauvinist policy
    within the Social-Democratic parties, will make excellent use of the
    weakness, the indecision and the insufficient clarity of the majority
    resolution. Astute parliamentarians that they are, they will distribute the
    roles among themselves: some of them will say that the “serious”
    arguments of Kautsky and Co. were not appreciated or analysed, and that
    therefore they must be discussed in a wider gathering; others will say,
    “Were we not right when we said that no deep-seated differences
    existed, if the women adherents of the Troelstra and Guesde-Sembat parties
    were able to agree with the Left-wing German women?”

TheWomen’s Conference should not have aided Scheidemann, Haase,
    Kautsky, Vandervelde, Hyndman, Guesde, Sembat, Plekhanov and others to blunt
    the vigilance of the working masses. On the contrary, it should have tried
    to rouse them and declared a decisive war against opportunism. Only in that
    case would the result have been, not a hopethat the “leaders”
    named above would “reform”, but a mustering of forces for an
    arduous and bitter struggle.

Considerthe way the opportunists and the “Centrists”
    violated the Stuttgart and Basle resolutions. That is thecrux ofthe matter. Try to visualise, clearly and without diplomacy, what has
    actually taken place.

Foreseeingwar, the International convenes and unanimously decides,
    should war break out, to work “to hasten the downfall of
    capitalism”;to work in the spirit of the Commune, of October
    and December 1905 (the exact words of the Basle resolution!); to work in a
    spirit that will consider it a “crime”if “the
    workers of one country shoot at the workers of another country”.

Aline of action in an internationalist, proletarian, and revolutionary
    spirit is indicated here with perfect clarity, a clarity that cannot be
    improved within the limits of legality.

Thenwar broke out—the very kind of war and exactly along the lines
    foreseen at Basic. The official parties acted in an absolutely contrary
    spirit: not like internationalists but like nationalists; not in a
    proletarian but in a bourgeois way; not in a revolutionary direction but in
    the direction of ultra-opportunism. If we say to the workers that this was
    downrighttreachery tothe socialist cause, we thereby reject all
    evasions and subterfuges, all sophisms alaKautsky and
    Axeirod. We clearly indicate the extent and the power of the evil; we
    clearly call for a struggle against that evil, not for conciliation with
    it.

Whataboutthemajority resolution? It does not contain a word
    of censure for the traitors, or a single word about opportunism, but merely
    a simplerepetition ofthe ideas expressed in the Basle
    resolution! One might think that nothing serious has happened, that an
    accidental and minor error has been made which calls merely for arepetitionof the old decision, or that a disagreement has arisen
    which is inconsequent and not of principle, and can bepapered
    over!

Thisis downrightmockery ofthe International’s
    decisions, mockery of the workers. As a matter of fact, the
    social-chauvinists wish nothing else but a simplerepetitionof
    the old decisions, if only nothing changes in practice. This is, in fact, a
    tacit and hypocritically disguised amnesty for the social-chauvinist
    adherents of most of the presentparties. We know that there are many who
    would follow this path and confine themselves to several Left
    phrases. However, their road is not for us. We have followeda
    differentroad, and will go on following it; we want to help the
    working-class movement and theactualconstruction of a working
    class party, in the spirit of irreconcilability towards opportunism and
    social-chauvinism.

Partof the German women delegates seem to have been afraid of a very
    clear resolution for reasons relating only to thetempoof the
    development of the struggle against chauvinism within a single party,
    namely, their own. Such reasoning was obviously out of place and erroneous,
    since the international resolution did not and could not deal with either
    the speed or the concrete conditions of the struggle against
    social-chauvinism within theindividualcountries; in this
    respect, the autonomy of the various parties is beyond dispute. The
    proclamation was needed, from an international tribune, of an irrevocable
    break with social-chauvinism in the entire direction and character of
    Social-Democratic work. Instead of that, the majority resolution once more
    reiterated the old error, that of the Second International, which
    diplomatically veiled opportunism and the gap between word and deed. We
    repeat: this is a road we shall not take.

[1]TheInternational Conference of Socialist Women held in Berne on March 26-28,
    1915, dealt with the attitude to the war. It was convened on the initiative
    of the women organisations attached to the C.C. R.S.D.L.P., with the active
    participation of Clara Zetkin, loader of the international women’s
    movement. Twenty-nine delegates from Britain, Germany, France, Holland,
    Switzerland, Russia and Poland attended the Conference, the Russian
    delegation including N. K. Krupskaya and Inessa Arrnand.

Thereport on the International Conference of Socialist
      Women was published in the Supplement toSotsial-DemokratNo. 42 of
      June 1, 1915.